Jeff,
So, that's not new to everyone, great!
At this time, my proposal is to proceed with draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo,
publish it as planned.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
--原始邮件--
发件人：JeffreyHaas
收件人：肖敏10093570;
Jeff,
I have no objection to the comparison, please go on.
One thing I want to emphasize is that, whether DC use case (brought up by
draft-wang-bfd-one-arm-use-case) or broadband access use case (brought up by
BBF TR-146), the key requirement is that the peer system is totally
BFD-Unaware, in
Greg, Jeff,
It looks that you converge on comparison between S-BFD Echo and Unaffiliated
Echo.
What I want to point out is, allowing using standalone BFD/S-BFD Echo without
periodically transmitted BFD/S-BFD Control packets, doesn't mean it's
Unaffiliated Echo.
In RFC 5880 section 3.2 the 4th
Jeff,
I agree to your analysis.
In the current draft, I've tried to make the desired behavior clear, at the
same time, reuse the already defined BFD procedure as much as possible.
As always, I'm open to any suggestions and comments. Although I disagree to a
specific suggestion sometimes, the
Jeff,
That's OK. I'll hold on for your further judgement.
Just to clarify, when this document's predecessor
(draft-wang-bfd-one-arm-use-case-00) was brought up to IETF, the proponents
didn't know any of BBF related prior art, that means their original work was
not inspired by BBF TR-146. At
Thank you Jeff! A very clear description on the core motivation and current
situation.
>From the author's perspective, I'd like to remove the reference to BBF TR-146
>if it's becoming a blocking issue instead of a supporting argument.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
Hi Greg,
Please see inline with [XM].
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
--原始邮件--
发件人：GregMirsky
收件人：肖敏10093570;
抄送人：draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-e...@ietf.org;rtg-bfd WG;
日 期 ：2021年11月17日 23:48
主 题 ：Re: Several questions about the draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo
Hi Xiao
Hi Greg,
Thanks for your thorough review and insightful questions.
I hold the pen for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo, so I'd like to give my
reply first.
As you may have known or not, before this draft was posted, we ever tried to
submit an errata instead of an I-D. However, under the
